On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:43:25PM +0100, Christoph Müllner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:12 PM LIU Zhiwei > <zhiwei_...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > > > thead-c906 uses some flags in pte [60-63] bits. It has history reasons that > > SVPBMT didn't exist when thead-c906 came to world. > > > > We named this feature as xtheadmaee. this feature is controlled by an custom > > CSR named mxstatus, whose maee field encodes whether enable the pte [60-63] > > bits. > > > > The sections "5.2.2.1 Page table structure" and "15.1.7.1 M-mode extension > > status register (MXSTATUS)" in document[1] give the detailed information > > about its design. > > I would prefer if we would not define an extension like XTheadMaee > without a specification. > The linked document defines the bit MAEE in a custom CSR, but the > scope of XTheadMaee > is not clearly defined (the term XTheadMaee is not even part of the PDF). > > We have all the XThead* extensions well described here: > https://github.com/T-head-Semi/thead-extension-spec/tree/master > And it would not be much effort to add XTheadMaee there as well.
Yeah, I was gonna request exactly this, so glad to see you beat me to the punch. It would be really great if this was done, particularly if this xmaee is going to appear in devicetrees and sooner or later is gonna want to be documented in a binding. Cheers, Conor. > For those who don't know the context of this patch, here is the c906 > boot regression report from Björn: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-01/msg04766.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
